3 ms·

A mandatory random set of numbers at the end of every name is an approach I quite like. Not only does it directly make every name available to 10,000 people, it

A mandatory random set of numbers at the end of every name is an approach I quite like. Not only does it directly make every name available to 10,000 people, it should reduce the demand for these desirable names in the first place since you have to share them with thousands of other people. Platforms should also consider accommodations for trademark holders. Most have some sort of program, but it seems to be a mess. If every normal screen name has a numeric code at the end, there's room to give trademark holders a non-numeric name without having to seize a handle from someone else. The spot normally occupied by the numeric code could be replaced with an indication that that account is owned by the trademark holder or with the name of the entity that owns the trademark, to differentiate it from normal accounts and also from any accounts that might hold a similar mark in a different business.

rectang 3y ago
I like that you're making concrete proposals and the append-random-numbers approach is thought-provoking. Removing the numbers for trademark holders is an imperfect solution though, though, since multiple entities can hold the same mark so long as they are in different markets. A critical test for trademark violation is "does it cause confusion in the marketplace?" and if nobody confuses Oracle Software with HiSpec Oracle trailer tires or Oracle Lighting, they're all allowed to hold a trademark on "Oracle". But if you're talking about a namespace where "there can be only one", which of the entities who holds a registered trademark wins?
- terribleperson 3y ago
  That's why I followed on with the suggestion of replacing the numbers with the owning entity. "Apple|Apple Inc." would be separate from "Apple|Apple Records." Of course, this is complicated when a trademark is owned by different companies in different countries or when a trademark is licensed to a company including the right to advertise with that trademark. An alternative thought I had was replacing the numbers with the business the trademark is in, but plenty of trademarks apply to more than one business and the 'primary' one can change over time. There are assuredly better solutions, but even an imperfect solution is better than the current state of things. First-come-first-serve with unique per-site screen names just plain sucks.
tiltowait 3y ago
Beyond making each name available to 10,000 (or more) people, randomizing the numbers puts everyone on a playing field. It’s an elegant solution—and why it’s such a baffling shame that Discord recently abandoned it for the terrible, outmoded “one unique username for everyone” approach.
- terribleperson 3y ago
  Yes, I was quite annoyed that Discord decided to abandon their 4-digit numbers. The first place I saw the approach was Battle.net, and was happy to see it when I joined Discord. I'm glad Discord decided to provide the ability to have a separate nickname from your actual handle, but there was no good reason to dump the numbers. edit: I agree the randomness is important. Without random numbers, the first person to get in will pick "0069".

rectang 3y ago

I like that you're making concrete proposals and the append-random-numbers approach is thought-provoking. Removing the numbers for trademark holders is an imperfect solution though, though, since multiple entities can hold the same mark so long as they are in different markets. A critical test for trademark violation is "does it cause confusion in the marketplace?" and if nobody confuses Oracle Software with HiSpec Oracle trailer tires or Oracle Lighting, they're all allowed to hold a trademark on "Oracle". But if you're talking about a namespace where "there can be only one", which of the entities who holds a registered trademark wins?

terribleperson 3y ago
That's why I followed on with the suggestion of replacing the numbers with the owning entity. "Apple|Apple Inc." would be separate from "Apple|Apple Records." Of course, this is complicated when a trademark is owned by different companies in different countries or when a trademark is licensed to a company including the right to advertise with that trademark. An alternative thought I had was replacing the numbers with the business the trademark is in, but plenty of trademarks apply to more than one business and the 'primary' one can change over time. There are assuredly better solutions, but even an imperfect solution is better than the current state of things. First-come-first-serve with unique per-site screen names just plain sucks.

tiltowait 3y ago

Beyond making each name available to 10,000 (or more) people, randomizing the numbers puts everyone on a playing field. It’s an elegant solution—and why it’s such a baffling shame that Discord recently abandoned it for the terrible, outmoded “one unique username for everyone” approach.

terribleperson 3y ago
Yes, I was quite annoyed that Discord decided to abandon their 4-digit numbers. The first place I saw the approach was Battle.net, and was happy to see it when I joined Discord. I'm glad Discord decided to provide the ability to have a separate nickname from your actual handle, but there was no good reason to dump the numbers. edit: I agree the randomness is important. Without random numbers, the first person to get in will pick "0069".